================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:294
@@ -292,1 +293,3 @@
+ if (!ClangTidyCheck::isValidCheckName(Checker)) {
+ assert(false &&
----------------
Should we really validate the analyzer check names here? And if so, should we
assert?
I'd be more comfortable moving at least the assert to somewhere in the static
analyzer itself, so that people working on it know what valid names are and
don't have to discover that by breaking an assert build of clang-tidy.
Or, alternatively, people can't add more analyzer checks by linking additional
libraries to clang-tidy, right? Should we just have a test that calls
"clang-tidy -list-checks" and verifies all the names?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:323
@@ +322,3 @@
+bool ClangTidyCheck::isValidCheckName(StringRef Name) {
+ return llvm::Regex("^[a-zA-Z0-9_.\\-]+$").match(Name);
+}
----------------
It almost feels like it is not worth implementing and testing this function.
I'd be fine with simply defining the string as a constant and then calling
llvm::Regex().match() at the two call sites. Specifically, if it is located
here, people might think that they have to do something with this function when
writing a check.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.h:89
@@ -88,1 +88,3 @@
+ /// \brief Returns \c true, if the specified string can be used for a check
+ /// name.
----------------
Maybe: .., if \p Name can be used as a check name.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4982
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
